You are Living in the Golden Years of Cinema

I’m sympathetic to your jeremiad, though not to all your choices.  That’s not important. But Mr. Barrett you have done damage to your thesis by including as an “also”  the most important living American filmmaker, David Lynch. Lynch did not make his first appearance in the 80s but in the 70s when Eraserhead caused filmmakers all over the United States to say, “My God, we can make films like that here.” Without his daring, originality, and incorruptibility, many of the folks you discuss would not have known how to liberate themselves from cinematic cliches.  Many of them know this, some of them don’t.  But if you wish to make a credible statement about the current golden age, you should be properly appreciative of one of its main architects.

Comment by Martha Nochimson from New York — July 24, 2009 @ 10:08 am

Glad you’re on board with the golden age, Martha, and glad your love for Lynch makes you imagine I’m slighting him. My piece doesn’t list any mere “also’s.” I list Lynch (like Stone, Sayles and others) among those who “came to prominence in the 80s”, a careful word choice that doesn’t mean “started work in the 80s.” Eraserhead was a cult movie, but the general public and mainstream critics didn’t start to know whom he was or accept him until his Oscar nods for Elephant Man and Blue Velvet. That’s when people started saying “Lynchian” and knowing what it meant. Cheers!

Comment by Michael Barrett from PopMatters — July 24, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

I second Martha’s sentiments. I grew up in the 1970s and I remember all too well the dreck we were served up behind the classics. For every “Panic in Needle Park” there were two bad Neil Simon comedies and two Irwin Allen disaster movies, each successively worse than the other until Allen nearly parodied his own productions with “The Swarm.” But that’s the way movie business has always been; it’s important to remember that B-movies were still in active production in the 70s when a lot of stand-alone theaters (especially drive-ins)screened double bills. I can find an awful lot of bad films out there today for every good one but considering that double features are no longer the norm, the ratio seems a little off.

Comment by Rodger Jacobs from Las Vegas, NV — July 24, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

You’re correct in saying there’s still plenty of great movies being made today, and there was plenty of crap to come out during the 70’s (there was also a lot of bad movies that came out during the 1930’s, which is considered the first Golden Age of cinema, but that’s another story). However, I must raise two points. One, you correctly point out many directors from the 80’s and 90’s are still working, and it’s nice to see you reject the stereotype of a director’s later work not being as interesting as their earlier works (Kathryn Bigelow’s latest movie, for example, is, I’d argue, also her best). But as the MONEYBALL fiasco proved, it’s becoming harder for them to get financing, and I think you’re a little too dismissive about the problems of distribution - smaller films still go under the radar too often (most people I know, for example, still haven’t seen JULIA, which contains the best performance of the year, by Tilda Swinton). Secondly, and just as important, is the attitude towards more serious movies by many critics and bloggers today, and for the last ten years or so. Movies that are mere cash register jobs may get panned, but more with a shoulder shrug-type “Eh, what can you do” tone to the reviews, while serious movies that try to do something, no matter how successful, are often treated like pond scum.

Comment by Seankgallagher from Brooklyn, NY — July 24, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Problems are industrial, structural, even political—these sorts of naively auterist argument are shortsighted and mostly uninteresting

Comment by Ivan Passer — July 25, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

I think most off your arguments are valid, but the problem is situated elsewhere.
The big difference is that people no longer accept that a film is allowed to be more that popcorn fodder.
Where during the seventies something as challenging to it’s audience as Robert Altman’s “3 Women” still translated to an ok succes , nowadays people go on and on about how “deep and complex” The Dark Knight was (it’s not a bad film, mind you) .
The big difference seems to be in the perception of film : up to the seventies, people accepted that film could not only offer popcorn amusement (there’s nothing wrong with that in se) but could also be a challenging , dare I say it - demanding - experience. I’m not saying the general public populating the multiplexes (or drive -ins in those days) were seeking anything different from those today, but in the general mainstream at least movies were still considered to be some kind of artform (I hate using the word, it immediatly seems elitist - which, by itself is a shame) . Nowadays movies are being chastised for being too elitist, difficult etc… the general reasoning seems to be they should stick to being quick, entertaining , numbifying, as they should be.
Anything that tries to be more than that isn’t worth time or energy.
Obviously there are exceptions and blockbuxter movies are not necessarily bad (I completely agree with your thoughts on Titanic eg.) and the essence of cinema (to evoke ideas, emotions and concepts through the juxtapose of image and sound) is still to be found there , but the way people regard cinema has defenitly changed ... and that’s why I don’t think this is another golden age.

Comment by Daviddvb from Belgium, Europe — July 27, 2009 @ 2:33 am

Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, M. Night Shyamalan, Kevin Smith, Ron Howard, Joel Schumacher, and Gore Verbinski….

By listing these names you just cancelled out whatever credibility you had going for you up to that point.

Comment by Ian Graham — July 27, 2009 @ 3:56 am

all you did was list a bunch of names. there was no backbone to your argument. what a bunch of self-indulgent, pretentious crap

Comment by anonymous — July 27, 2009 @ 6:50 am

The Golden Age of Distribution seems to be more fitting of a title to your argument.  Your Golden Age seems to encompass from the 80’s to now.  Might as well date it back to the 60’s.  The true golden age of cinema has its place for a reason.  There were no other means of visual mass entertainment available before the 1950’s.  Film had its place at the top.  TV came out and brought film down a few pegs.  Film has tried to recover - by allowing the indie style filmmakers a chance.  You can say films have gotten better,  more people can do them and more people can view them.  But, you cannot say the passion is on both sides of the coin.  Film will never be at the same level it once was during the Real Golden Age of Cinema.  Where people would dress up and make movie night a special occasion.  It had respect and provided the only escape during the world’s greatest despair and that will never be taken away.  Change the name of your era.  Because film historians that actually do their job and look at history before re-inventing the wheel will call this era something entirely different.

Comment by Saint from Detroit — July 27, 2009 @ 8:57 am

No problems with your arguments about the quantity of great movies being made, but the problem is still distribution: it’s hard to find things that you’re not even aware of on the Internet. And MOST people won’t make the effort. (The reelection of Bush in 2004, for instance, proved that the average American does NOT go looking for info on the Net, at least not from non-traditional sources. If they did, they would have been appalled by what the rest of the world already knew (and the American press was too eager to hide for fear of being branded non-patriotic) and they would have voted massively against him. At least I hope so.)

I also remember bad 60’s and 70’s movies, but it now appears that you can make “great movies” merely by copying scenes from them. Tarantino never has and never will be a great director, he’s just plagiarizing those bad movies, and critics call it “art” and “homage” when they’re really unimaginative pieces of shit (the movies, not the critics… well, come to think of it…). As Ian Graham implies, your inclusion of Tarantino, Rodriguez, Shyamalan, Smith, Howard, Schumacher, and Verbinski (etc.) kind of makes us wonder if you know what a good film is.

One thing, though, about your writing style: a “principle” guides your views on a given subject; a “principal” runs a school.

Comment by Ricardo from Mexico City — July 27, 2009 @ 9:16 am

I certainly enjoyed this article, but it fails to account for what makes certain periods in film great.  It is not that films of the 70’s or the Nouvelle Vague were “good,” its that they presented audiences and cinephiles alike with something they had never seen before and thus moved the medium forward—please excuse the unspecific nature of that last sentence.  While the 2’000’s have presented us with many good movies, I hesitate to say whether or not they have re-defied convention and film making the way those aforementioned eras did.

Comment by Danny — July 27, 2009 @ 9:24 am

You brought up some good points.  I will confess I am of the “70’s was the Golden Age” school but I’ll admit you got me thinking a bit.  I am still concerned about the numbing effect of commercialism and the worship of the all-holy opening weekend grosses.  Do we still have filmmakers that say damn the torpedos…I HAVE to make this film?

Comment by Mark Paskell from Santa Monica, CA — July 27, 2009 @ 9:24 am

RE: Mark. There is nothing more boring than hearing moviegoers pine about box office grosses.

Comment by Charles — July 27, 2009 @ 10:11 am

you’re completely missing the point!!maybe the 30s and the 70s had their piece of crap movies and that some of today’s movies are worth of the golden age category..HOWEVER - considering the amont of attention directed towards filmmaking nowadays and the thechnology available today,also the amount of money invested and the fact that practically anyone can make a movie - considering all of these, there should have been ten times the amount of good movies there is today.from your whole article it is obvious that you have zero movie culture.all you did was enumerate some classics.wow!anyone with a connection to imdb can do that!if you want to write an article like this make sure it’s a pertinent one!now go and watch transformers(one of the movies of our so called golden age) for the hundreth time and leave the movie business to the people who really understand it!!!

Comment by durden from Bucharest — July 27, 2009 @ 10:18 am

Anonymous - you are boring and rude.

Why comments like yours are ever published is beyond me. 

Now, back to my reading comments of substance.

Comment by Rachel J. from Seattle — July 27, 2009 @ 11:11 am

Coincidentally, I recently wrote a blog on this very subject, but from the opposite tack, ‘The Blockbuster and the Death Of Hollywood’.  I don’t want to appear to be flogging my own blog but rather than copy and paste it here and take up way too much space, I offer the link, http://argento2665.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/the-blockbuster-and-the-death-of-hollywood/

Comment by Dave H. from Ontario, Canada — July 27, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

I think calling our modern film age golden is debatable, but what I do know is this article was written by a person that truly understands and appreciates the current vibrant state of film art.  I could care less if the conclusion of this article is arguable (especially on the internet).  It is this kind of article that is all too rare and the spirit of the message (dare I say, it’s subtext?) explained within the words is as a poignant now than at any time in film history.

I will say that the only thing this article lacked was more mention of James Cameron’s incredibly profound effect upon film, aside from Titanic (which I never liked and consider it among Cameron’s lesser films).  I would also respectfully express my lament at the lack of mention for young greats like Christopher Nolan (Following, Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) and Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X2: X-Men United).

Nonetheless, know this Michael Barret, your love and appreciation for the fine film art we currently enjoy is shared by me and many others.  Bravo for reminding us of our fortune to be living in such times as these.

Comment by Citizen M from Canada — July 27, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with Citizen M; although I found Michael’s approach a bit on the heavy-handed side, it’s refreshing to see someone as passionate about film art as I am about the written word. God knows I’ve done my share of bitter complaining (especially in the last few years) about the ever-dwindling literacy rate in the U.S. and the exercies in monosyllabic babble that make up the New York Times Bestseller List. Michael’s making the same argument, just over a different art form. Thank you, Citizen M, for underscoring this vital point.

Comment by Rodger Jacobs from Las Vegas, NV — July 27, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

I think the analysis here is a little limited here. You all seem to be getting lost in distribution vs finance vs quality of output etc. The idea that we have access to so many more movies is unquestionably true, and this does allow us to see more high quality films. Granted you may have to sift through some rubbish to get there, but there are facilities online and elsewhere to do this, you just have to want to.

So it is true to claim this is a Golden Age of distribution, and it may seem like a Golden Age of film simply due to the sheer sudden rise of high quality viewing possibilities. The problem with this is simply that if that is the basis such a declaration, then where or rather when does it stop. What we are experiencing now is still early days for the international free flow of information. In 10 years when digital is everywhere and your television has become a web based on demand entertainment system, will it be possible to have a setup that located material of your personal taste and made it available for you, not unlike an advanced version of Apples Genius? When it’s that easy to drown in exactly what you want, what will we call it then?

Comment by J Kane from Scotland — July 27, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

In my piece I wrote: “Now you’re finally getting annoyed, perhaps, at my stubborn, mulish perversity, the annoying rattle of my cup at your orthodoxies.” I anticipated a response not unlike primates, poked with a stick, bursting into a chorus of “Don’t bring me no good news,” and haven’t been entirely disappointed, though I’m always pleased when bits of my good news seem to seep through.

In general I have backed away from responding, but I’m very interested in an early comment from Ivan Passer: “Problems are industrial, structural, even political—these sorts of naively auterist argument are shortsighted and mostly uninteresting.”

Ah, but not so much as vague and disengaged responses, Mr. Passer. Your posting could prompt an equally tossed-off reply: If good artists aren’t crucial when discussing an art, then why on earth should we discuss anything else about it—industrial, structural, even political?

You give the impression of having only cast a weary eye over my piece without having read and absorbed everything—forgive me if that’s not so, but it’s what your response implies. I have an inkling of what you might mean because if you are the director of such excellent films as “Intimate Lighting” and “Cops and Robbers,” then I know you have personal experience working under two systems of production and distribution: a state system of overt political vetting and interference, and a “free enterprise” (corporate) system of commercial vetting and interference that may encompass politics and many other things. You have made films that critics have loved and no one has seen, and you have also no doubt been unable to realize many projects. Mr. Passer, I’m sure that kind of experience would get anyone down! That’s why I’m responding to your brief response out of all others, because it’s really important you hear this message.

As the first half of my piece—the one that doesn’t mention any auteurs—implies, there are now alternative methods of production and distribution emerging that are shoving aside the dinosaur paradigms in which you may still feel professionally trapped. This is one of the earmarks of a golden age, and perhaps it’s not too late for you to join it. But first you have to be aware of its potential, which means somebody must point it out to you, which means penetrating the sour defeatist (if hard-earned) miasma of “problems.”

I’m going to direct your attention to this blog post, “The Light in the Tunnel” by Roger Ebert, who isn’t the cock-eyed optimist I am but who knows he sees a lot of good movies and thinks about how they are getting made and distributed. The link is http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/the_light_in_the_tunnel.html.

I call your attention to the case of Lee Isaac Chung, a Korean-American who founded his own company, went to Rwanda, made a movie in rather neo-realist mode (“Munyurangabo”) and is now getting it distributed on DVD through Film Movement. It’s also showing in a few theatres, but few people will see it that way, nor should they. I checked this movie out of my public library last week in San Antonio (too bad I haven’t had time to see “Transformers”!), because they subscribe to the Film Movement series, and I had already seen the film before Roger reviewed it this week.

He also discusses the case of Nina Paley, who is distributing “Sita Sings the Blues” through her website—and is even doing it free to bypass music-rights issues. Consider Ramin Bahrani, who has now made three remarkable movies on the cheap—and anyone anywhere can get them from Netflix—and he doesn’t bother to go around pitching to studios for green lights. He just makes the movies. This is art that must get out to the people, and it is getting out—just not through the dinosaur systems, whose problems are bypassed as irrelevant to everyone except those who still subscribe to them.

Yes, I’m looking beyond the problems of an increasingly vexed industrial-structural-political paradigm to what future film scholars will notice about the explosive creativity of our era. Now good luck on your own projects!

Comment by Michael Barrett from PopMatters — July 27, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

thank you for this useless drivel.  i would love to see a film blogger come up with unique theories on film and opinions that force the reader to reconsider their perspective on film and its role in, and influence on, society.  instead we get piles of word vomit from mostly everyone about what they love or what they hate.  that’s not criticism and you might as well be ben lyons.
i don’t need you to tell me what movies are good, which directors are great and generally try to drown me in the toothless flood that is your encyclopedic knowledge of film.  say something that makes people think, say something that opens people’s eyes.  a great writer once said “the critic is the only independent source of information. the rest is advertising.”  and you, sir, are an advertisement for all the films and directors you love until you find something truly profound to say about the movies.  oh, and the critic that said that was pauline kael.

Comment by unkut from the madwest — July 27, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

J Kane from Scotland: I can’t resist saying Thank You for a wonderful and pertinent comment! Yes, that is indeed the question.

Comment by Michael Barrett from PopMatters — July 27, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

Although I appreciate your enthusiasm, Mr. Barrett, I don’t agree that your conclusion follows from your propositions. As others have pointed out (and you acknowledge), better distribution doesn’t necessarily translate into better films. But, until your response to Ivan Passer, you don’t really explain why you think any of films from the past decade are as good as films from the 1970s. You remind us that Irwin Allen was popular during that decade, which is true—the 70s gave us a lot of dreck. So did the 60s, the 50s, the 40s, the 30s, the 20s, and the 80s and 90s. No one would debate that. A more pertinent question would be, why the best films from a given period seem not only better than other films from that period, but the best films from other periods as well. This isn’t something you address in your essay—unless you think your nostalgia argument is pertinent, which it’s not.

Yeah, I remember my first giddy experiences in learning that film could be something intellectually and emotionally meaningful—and it was with a film that was 15 years old at the time, when I went to see a re-release of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I’m too young to remember the hey day of 1970s cinema as it happened, yet, in comparison to the films of other decades (the current one included), more of the films from roughly 1967-1981 seem more enriching on every viewing than films from other periods. When I see Chinatown again, I note something new or respond differently to Gittes’s inadequacies or Cross’s acceptance of his own corruption. When I watch Jaws for the umpteenth time, its economy impresses me more and more. The only recent director who I can say the same about is Paul Thomas Anderson—and he’s primarily known as a director who wears his 70s influences on his sleeve.

So, if you’re still reading comments, maybe you can address this question: Why are the films of the 00s the Golden Age—why are the best films from this decade notably *better* than the best films of some other decade?

Comment by Deron from Deep South USA — July 27, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

Wow, what’s with all the hate? Found the article to be very well written (and not just because I couldn’t agree more about the list of films that is going to remembered from this period). If you say that easier exposure through technological advances should mean even more great films should be “out there” today, keep in mind that in the age of MetaCritic (immediate) critical consensus is also much harder to achieve.

As stated before, whether you agree with the hypothesis or not - the spirit of the writer here is applaudable. Well done!

Comment by Hendrik — July 27, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

Hello Deron, yes I’m still drawn like a moth to the comments, and I believe I have an answer to your thoughtful question, which is pertinent because you’re touching upon the emotional resonance that movies have for people. Indeed, this is how many people think of a “Golden Age.” And my nostalgia argument isn’t irrelevant to this, because consider that you’re talking about the movies you discovered at a certain giddy point in your life, and for this purpose it doesn’t matter when the films were made. If you grew up in the 80s or 90s, I’m not surprised if you felt 70s pictures were better. I don’t just mean that I think 80s cinema was rather less exciting, but the nature of cinema’s solitary appeal is sometimes such that it’s easier to feel alienated from the contemporary that your friends are watching, to take that stuff for granted, in favor of something with a degree of removal, a window onto something you “missed,” a patina of the classic. But you might just as easily have discovered with joys of silent cinema, or fallen in love with 30s screwball comedies, or 50s Bollywood.

I know people who believe the cinema went downhill with the talkies, and I sympathize deeply with that POV. As they continually refresh themselves with the joys and beauties of “The Last Laugh” or “Greed,” which they prefer infinitely to “Jaws,” you can’t tell them they’re wrong. You realize that this element of personal response is subjective (as opposed to the objective things I mentioned). The only way I could address this in my essay is to point out there are now people walking the earth, and there will be more in 20 or 30 years, who have or will have that type of response to many of the titles I’ve mentioned. You may never be one of them. So I don’t need to argue that today’s best films are “better” than the best films of other ages, because I don’t accept that the best films of other ages are “better” than another’s best. I recognize that every era has its qualities and passionate advocates, and so we turn to the more objective points about today’s creative explosion as my contradiction of what I call the myth of decline.

The point of my laundry list of contemp titles and filmmakers isn’t to convince anyone that you must believe this or that individual tree is great, but that there is indeed a forest, and many people find it a remarkable and inspiring one. When people complain tirelessly that they’re not making ‘em like they used to, I wonder why they would want such a thing anyway, and how much of the forest they’re exploring.

I leave you with this. I believe there’s a self-validating process toward “greatness” in multiple viewings. The more intimately you know any movie, the more you grasp every aspect of it, the more it becomes a part of you until you’re really watching yourself. So of course it resonates and of course it’s great. However, when you re-watch what you’ve seen before, that’s time not devoted to something you haven’t seen, whether it’s an older classic or something of your own time. It may become increasingly hard to key into the contemporary.

Thank you for reading and commenting. I hope you’re still reading the comments!  : )

Comment by Michael Barrett from PopMatters — July 28, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

A self-correction: Ivan Passer directed “Law and Disorder.” (Aram Avakian directed “Cops and Robbers.”

Comment by Michael Barrett from PopMatters — July 29, 2009 @ 11:44 am

Michael, thanks for responding. I agree with you that what constitutes a classic film is inherently subjective. As I was extolling the virtues of cinema from the late 60s and 70s, my step-mother insisted that musicals from the 50s were the be-all and end-all of filmic artistry. And I’m sure that quite a few people are experiencing cinema now that is encouraging them to open up their cinematic vistae and inspiring them to make their own films (though I shudder to think what mumblecore is going to inspire).

That said, I wasn’t the one claiming we’re living in a Golden Age, or that if we weren’t so damned ungrateful we’d all recognize the cinematic brilliance cluttering theatres these days. That is necessarily a qualitative argument; unless you mean to suggest that we’re always in a Golden Age of cinema, you have effectively said that the current crop of films is notably better than another, comparable crop. But you don’t provide any real reason for asserting any film is better than another; your argument rests largely on the idea that the past tends to be idealized and films like Magnolia (exceptional), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (strained, in my opinion) and Diving Bell and the Butterfly (wan) will be hallmarks for future generations. That might be true, but it could also be used to support an argument about how dreadful the future of cinema looks to be. Indeed, one could argue that you’ve evacuated any concept of quality rather than defended the quality of any one particular era.

I offered one admittedly troubled framework for identifying why films are great. Your critique of it is certainly apt, although I would disagree that repeated viewings tend to be self-validating. I’ve seen plenty of films that I adored when seeing them that after several viewings seem unimportant, awkward or even dreadful.

Thanks for the dialogue!

Comment by Deron from Deep South — July 29, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

You’re still reading! I might indeed be arguing that we always live in a Golden Age in terms of the subjective response of somebody out there, and I’m also arguing that the specific, non-subjective elements of today’s Golden Age are the innovations in production and distribution that have opened up the field to so many more filmmakers (never before since the initial explosion of features in the Teens, in my opinion), and the sheer number of productive filmmakers today who are generally regarded as great or important, including the leading lights of several different eras and many different countries, an aggregate that has never been matched in history. I think that’s surely enough to mark “the Golden Age” (which is partly a rhetorical trick that’s better than just saying “times are better than you think”).

But I realize people aren’t happy without the quality argument, so my rhetorical process tries to force them to provide it themselves, almost against their will (and that is asking a lot!). I avoid the trick of trying to convince anyone why this film or that director must be great (subjective judgment) by listing so many of such obvious variety, in so many modes and styles and from so many countries, that inevitably, readers must realize that yes, they cherry-pick this film or that director themselves as great for their own reasons—and then they realize that other people are alive who go through the same process, and by the time everyone is done, you have an astonishing pantheon.

And within and between these points, I am constantly warning against the negative attitudes that resist one’s recognition of the plenty one lives in. If you’re looking for my set of criteria of why a film is great, I won’t provide it, because I want you to provide it. The one you provide may not convince you, and indeed one could just as well argue for the myth of decline, and so many do and will continue to do. But why should you choose that line instead of the other? And why would you? What is to be gained? A wallow in rueful regret that the good times are over? So many have fallen into this, I’d rather provide a shock to their systems.

But you realize we must move on, Deron! Nobody else is reading anymore.  ;p

Comment by Michael Barrett from PopMatters — July 30, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

The other night I saw an Argentinian film, INtimate Stories. (2002) Lovely, crafted, warm, resonant. I’d never heard of it and only saw it because my local libary branch displayed the DVD.

  How good is this film in terms of other films? First thought: there are so many other films it’s getting impossible to say. About these other films I still think first of something that an old sci-fi author (I believe it was) once stated: 99% of EVERYTHING is worthless. The, er, worst thing about Barrett’s argument is that he ignores this profound truth. (And so smiles on such empty clunkers as KIll Bill.) Instead, he sounds like what he is, based on his previous Pop Matters contributions: someone who loves film, has forgotten more of them than I’ve seen, and is so moved to declare his love that he doesn’t care who hears it.

  My own sense is, leave him to it. I respect his judgement, if not each indivudal manifestation thereof. But to me he’s got less an argument than a sentiment. It’s a worthy sentiment: there’s a lot more of good stuff OUT THERE than many realize, especially the naysayers, aesthetes, and unworthy others. Indeed, my own Argentinian film above could (to me) be used in evidence.

  But my own sentiment is to stick to Harlan Ellison. (Just remembered his name!) 99% of everything is crap. (Just remembered the exact word he used.) It was true in 1949. It was true in 1979. It’s still true today, when there’s never been more to choose from. So we must be the more vigilant on the basis upon which we choose, even though, again like me with this Argentinian film, we’re hardly aware of “choosing” at all.

Comment by Terry from San ANtonio — August 1, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

P.S. A correction and a comment. Woops! It was Theodore Sturgeon not Harlan Ellison who made the comment about everything being mostly crap, only he apparently said 90% was, not 99%.

  As I wrote I only dimly recalled a favorite passage that I afterward remembered. It’s from Donald Barthelme’s once-famous novel, Snow White, and was once widely quoted. The subject is “the trash phenomenon.” The point? There’s a lot of it. Per capita figures are growing at about four per cent a year. Soon “we may very well reach a point where it’s 100 percent.” The narrator continues: “Now at such a point, you will agree, the question turns from a question of disposing of this ‘trash’ to a question of appreciating its qualities, because, after all, it’s 100 percent, right?” There’s more, especially the advice that now “we have to learn how to ‘dig’ it.” What we want, finally, is to be “on the leading edge of the trash phenomenon.”

  Barrett’s arguement is really that we had better position ourselves on this edge. There’s no other option. Now the “trash”—contra Sturgeon—is 100%.

Comment by Terry from San Antonio — August 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am